Infantry weapon damage changes

[DogACTUAL]

Ever notice it is always the same small gang of people complaining about all the 'controversial' changes made to the game mechanics?
Complaining about every aspect of it?

Ever notice that they are generally the ones throwing around insults the most and always talking down to people that disagree with their opinion?
Always making it personal?

You can also recognize them by their extensive use of hyperbole words and phrases.

[X-Alt]

Notice how people who actually play the game aren't complaining?



Unlike the garbage that was the FH2 turrets, this change has made PR better.

[inb4banned]

The people who are for this change - what exactly has been made better? What map, what faction, what situation is better and how was it before? I'm really curious.

[LimitJK]

just had a funny encounter on nujima (or whatever).

im just finished with resupplying my lat and run of with the at4 in my hand as suddenly a sniper pops up in front, noscope chestshot, im still up.
which is in itself fine, he then pulls out his pistol and emptys his mag, hitting me 3 times only getting me down to black and white.
i have enough time to pull out my famas, dolphin dive and spray him him down with one burst from the hip.

all that at point blank range, shows how ridiculously underpowered 9mm has become.

[Mostacho]

This change on weapon damage must be reversed.

Firstly because the old damage was good, the gameplay was fun and overall balanced, there was no need to change it so drastically.

If the purpose of the modification was to leave the game more realistic, why a12ga shot in the middle of the chest is not able to knock down someone who is not wearing a vest? !!!! Is it even possible that this change was thought, planned and tested and nobody noticed it?

It should not be allowed to make a change like this, which affects all players on all maps without the consequences of it being anticipated and discussed. As result, the gameplay is worse

In addition, insurgent mode is unplayable; there is no denying on that...

With that change assuming both sides have players with the same skill level, it is absurd to think that one side will start to play magically well because it is now at a disadvantage, especially in a game where sides have the same number of players.

It is more likely that team favored with better weaponry will seek to use and abuse that advantage even more, not that the disadvantaged team will magically start playing professionally and balance the difference.

I understand that unbalanced maps can be fun, and are the players' preference, but not at that level ...

I've seen people discuss the damage a shot would cause in real life, the military training of a sniper. But these things do not matter at all.

Estimating the damage a gun makes based on real life should not be the only parameter to apply in PR. The purpose of the MOD when it was created was to give a realistic touch to the BF2, not to transform it into a simulator, today there are several games much more realistic than PR, both mechanically and graphically, and yet, some people still prefer to play the PR , Simply because it's more fun!

Pr is an authentic game, focused on teamplay and fun as shooting games, but interesting for it realistic touch, it is this combination that has brought so much success to this MOD, do not spoil it.

So far no one has justified how this improved the mod, All the argument is for the sake of muh realism ... because IRL ...u suck...

[shifty454]

The people who are for this change - what exactly has been made better? What map, what faction, what situation is better and how was it before? I'm really curious.

can you tell me the same of what the change made it worst, cause im curious also.

The weapon change made me try to play more with battle rifle like the FAL before i found no use to use them over a AK now i dont mind playing them

I played vietnam maps its not broken.

I played insurgency its not broken.

I played MEC vs US (any faction against them) on both side didnt think anything is broke had good experience.

I played with snipers the US one seemed weak at long distance but i didnt have problem with others (rus, militia, insurgent, british, canadian).

like i said in a earlier post shotguns take longer to open doors but i killed people no problem with it i can understand making them hit a bit more.

smgs havent tried them that much yet so cant make a opinion on them but i can understand the point of some people, (MP5 tatics).

pistols i didnt see anything broken but this is just my opinion.

zwilling said he was open to feedback but seems some people are just against any change. just the way i see it for one i hated the turret mechanics changed and was happy to revert back so i understand opinion are different for everybody

[shifty454]

In addition, insurgent mode is unplayable; there is no denying on that...

how is it unplayable i dont understand your point cause i didnt see nothing wrong ins dont get steamrolled or neither does bluefor so yeah i can deny it cause i clrearly havent played the same game as you

[inb4banned]

can you tell me the same of what the change made it worst, cause im curious also.

They added the ability for many automatic weapons to 1 shot you either in the **** or even in torso if no vest. This is bad because it removes a certain amount of freedom from the game, one that is there because of how hard it is to kill otherwise.

It adds many frustrating moments where you get 1 shot out of nowhere, or a guy that you have a drop on shoots a random bullet and gets a luck kill. This happened very rarely before.

It even negatively affects teamwork in general since it buffs camping lone wolfs - boring, frustrating and not what the game is about.

I played vietnam maps its not broken.

US gets an automatic rifle with 20 bullets that can 1 shot anybody. NVA on the other hand only has Mosin capable of 1 shotting - a manual rifle with 10 bullets, only available on couple of kits vs M14 which everybody can get.

Then there's the SKS, a semi auto rifle which has been nerfed heavily long before (takes too long to hit follow up shots) and it's still a 2 shot kill... vs an automatic 1 shot kill weapon.

And if that's not enough we have the useless PPSH and SMG... again vs full team of 1 shot rifles. If that doesn't break the balance I don't know what the fuck does.

I played insurgency its not broken.

G3, MG3, M240 and a bunch of others are now capable of 1 shotting anybody. FAL being made OP isn't a good outcome, it's shadowed by the amount of 1 shot weapons for blufor. As if INS was fun before it's now even more frustrating, blufor campers have even more incentive to camp.

[shifty454]

thx for your awnser inb4banned i understand your point

but as of me didnt had any problem with the update its just as my experience that why we can all give feedback

[Vista]

can you tell me the same of what the change made it worst, cause im curious also.

Gee I don't know, getting one tapped in the chest by a fully automatic rifle???????????

[himond]

I dont see whats the problem with one shot kills (wich actually are only knock offs). Lone campers are not effective against other than new players because EPIPENS.
Also 5.56 weapons are better at recoil control and rate of fire so it pretty much compensates at closer ranges at least. And also the outcome of a fight is mostly determined by who shoots first (and hits) and luck and not the damage of the weapon since there is no much difference between 1 or 2 shots.
There is a big difference now for pistols, SMGs and shotguns wich are really terrible at firefights.
So with this in mind I would say buff those to be very effective at about 50 mts and then rapidly decay; make 7.62 one shot at 70mts or so max (maybe any distance, why not?); and leave 5.56 2 shots at any distance and 1 shot for insurgents.
Then, I think chest should be weaker than limbs.
Also, one shot snipers and possibly less setting time.

[DogACTUAL]

The people who are for this change - what exactly has been made better? What map, what faction, what situation is better and how was it before? I'm really curious.

In my opinion it made the battle rifles worth using, before the dmg was not good enough to compensate for the great recoil and bad full auto control. Also remember, one hit capability (even against unarmored) is only at close range, where most people can full auto spray anyways.

7.62 cartridges in general are better portrayed now. Considering that they have way more KE than 5.56, that difference was not as pronounced before. Me and most peope, when given the choice between an MMG and an LMG would always opt for the LMG. Better control, higher ROF, less recoil. For example look at the INS AR kit weapons or compare the US AR and MG kit.

I actually enjoyed playing against MEC and having to watch out more in CQB when before as US i would easily dominate CQB. We still won.

INS is playable for the same reason MEC vs US is still playable. Most of the INS weapons are 7.62x39 anyway.


Another nice thing is that the new system unifies the dmg values of the different weapons if they have the same catridge, slight differences in barrel length and round type put aside of course. If you ask me in a game like this, that is the was it should be. It was always strange that the round coming out of a sniper rifle was so different compared to one coming out of a full auto battle rifle, even though they were the same.

And of course the KE being more dynamic at different ranges is also nice and adds more unique elements to long range firefights.


I also like that body armour actually plays a noticable role now. As it should considering we are dealing with proper plate carriers here.
Before you barely noticed its effectiveness, because for most weapons the amount of shots to kill didn't change at all (battle rifles, sniper rifles, DMRs and MMGs).
Now shots to kill are significantly different depending on if the target has body armour or not.

I think the performance of pistol rounds and buckshot against body armour is reasonable. A plate carrier stops those kind of projectiles easily.
You can always aim for the upper leg area if you have to. But this brings me to the one thing i really don't like.

And that is how pistol rounds and buckshot are performing against unarmored center mass. I really don't like it, because it is not even realistic like i elaborated in my previous comments in this thread.
I totally agree with you there, pistols,SMGs and shotguns need a great buff against unarmored targets to make them realistic and emphasise their role as CQB weapons.

[Mostacho]

INS is playable for the same reason MEC vs US is still playable. Most of the INS weapons are 7.62x39 anyway.

.

how is it unplayable i dont understand your point cause i didnt see nothing wrong ins dont get steamrolled or neither does bluefor so yeah i can deny it cause i clrearly havent played the same game as you

Assuming people aim for center mass and head, not **** n' balls.....

In fact, 5.56 causes more damage than 7.62x39 and has similar damage to 7.62x51, because insurgents do not have a vest and blufor does. Look at the table the DEV posted....

That is, you have a weapon that does similar/more damage, has less recoil, is more accurate, has an optical sight, has a larger capacity, carries more ammunition, and generally has a higher rate of fire and is easier to control.

That at the hand of all infantry do not forget the armored vehicles, reconnaissance UAV, and automatic machineguns in .308 that kills in one hit, vests that reduce all other guns dmg etc..

It was not easy to win as an insurgent, now it's extremely difficult.

If the players of both teams have similar skills and the number of players is the same, the insurgent team has no way to win because it is in extreme disadvantage.

I've seen the insurgent team take a beating even with better players than the blufor team in al basrah, and mass rage quit in Op archer.

Also i seen the insurgent team win only once after the patch, in kokan, and it was only by 1 cache because the blufor players were much worse plus the guys operating the APC had no clue on how to use it properly

I do not know if you're devising that you did not notice anything to make your point, or you were too naive to not realize that the gameplay dramatically changed.

[shifty454]

For insurgency man you really got unlucky with your rounds cause i had really good round of ins since the update so i coud say the same to you that you are either lying or too naive to realize how the insurgency is not broken cause of that update

[fecht_niko]

Apparently some people dont get what PR is about...

PR was never a military simulator because the engine doesnt allow it and gameplay is much more important.

The 1shot capability lowers teamwork in a squad because you can kill much more enemies yourself.

The other point is the 1 vs 1 balance on medium range. Imagine you get hit once before spotting the enemy, you spot him while he hits you again and you 1shot him. Is that balance?

Nerfing pilstols, shotguns and SMGs made them obsolet. Why not deleting them completely?

The only thing I like is the energy loss on distance. Leave that and revert the rest.

[peaveyyyy]

I just used 2 whole sterling mags to kill one person in Falklands. Probably 2/3 of the shots hit. He is firing back multiple one shot 7.62 and I have no idea how he missed me. Just one would have me dead.

Falklands medic has only one choice of weapon. If you are aiming for realism, you failed. No one's body armour can take 2 mags. Ever. You would fall over!

Makes it pointless. Pistols same, just useless now. Breaks the game. If you want to nerf pistols and SMG and shotgun, make them spray more over long range. Short range they are and should be the best.

I also agree that this was never broken, so didn't need fixing. I am sorry to be negative Zwilling.

maybe fix the reserved slots instead?

[gwa1hir]

cant be broken. DogACTUAL said its fine.
its just us the same pack of people complaining all the time.
same logic that applies right now in the PRTA feedback thread.....there its also only the same people and therefore not true ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................HEHE xD

[inb4banned]

In my opinion it made the battle rifles worth using, before the dmg was not good enough to compensate for the great recoil and bad full auto control. Also remember, one hit capability (even against unarmored) is only at close range, where most people can full auto spray anyways.I actually enjoyed playing against MEC and having to watch out more in CQB when before as US i would easily dominate CQB. We still won.

80-90m is not such a close range at all and people almost never full auto spray at it because it's super ineffective. G3 vs M4 was fine before, G3 had better damage at range + more precise and M4 was better at CQB. But it didn't dominate at all since it relies on burst, if your 1st burst doesn't kill opponent often gets enough bullets out to kill you. Biggest CQB difference was ammo and recoil which is why the M4 was still preferable.

And what did you do before anyway, use MP5 as MEC (oh wait you never actually played inf)?

7.62 cartridges in general are better portrayed now. Considering that they have way more KE than 5.56, that difference was not as pronounced before.

Oh yeah, totally. M14 is a 1 shot kill, while AK and SKS are 2 shot kills. Even the M16 is a 2 shot kill. But wait, M16 is capable of 2 shotting way further than the AK or SKS. What a great job. A rifle that shoots much faster and has almost no recoil is better than a semi auto rifle in every situation possible. What a great joke.

[Mouthpiece]

Don't like this change. Discussed it with a lot of people online, in game. No one seems to like/understand it. Well, if you really like the changes, so be it - let's put the pistol and shotgun, and smg's out of the meta, but please nerf the G3 and FAL. In 3 games of Muttrah we just rolled over US like it was nothing. I know 3 games aren't much and we could be biased, but it felt like G3 did it's job for the win.

[Daan]

I also don't like the new changes. The shotgun got nerfed to hard and is almost useless now.
The game was never about realism but about nice gamedynamics and a balanced challange for both teams to win.
I really miss the old Kashan/Silent Eagle/Khami where it was balanced 4V4 Tanks and not some weird layout with MEC 2xtanks, 1xBMP3 vs 3leo's or smthng.
Just like when the deviation bar came in ,some weapons will be to OP and some useless.
I think this will also be less fun for new players because they will try to use a pistol or shotgun but will get 1-shotted by a guy with AK right in front of them.
Idk in general I liked the old weapon system more